2013-01-25

Shrinking territories and the rise of the LBK /Territoires rétractiles et de l'ascension de la culture Rubanée

IntroductionThe transitional phase of
the Mesolithic / Neolithic, also called 'Neolithization' is highlighted and
discussed in many papers. As this is also a major issue for the South Limburg region, there is a reason to
write about this (again) on this blog. In this article, some new ideas are explored.Focused surface
prospections in the wider region always yields suspect material, that cannot
easily be placed in the Neolithic: it is often either typical Mesolithic( i.c microliths ortools made in the mircoburin technique) or
just 'fitting in a nomadic lifestyle', or finds can be regarded as
tools with very small dimensions, i.c. these are mainly (micro-)
bladelets. Such tools not only were found at locations where we might
expect them so i.e. interpret as part of a hunting assemblage, but also they
are found near local flint mines and even in what could be interpret as ateliers around former
local flint-mines.The very complicated
situation for South- Limburg and its adjacent area ( the Belgian Hesbaye,
the German Selfkant and Middle -Limburg)
because of the availability of
flint as a raw material and consequently the large flint processing activities
throughout the prehistory, is described elsewhere on this blog. In the Mesolithic period (
ca 8800 - 5400 BC) , the inhabitants of the area of what now is called
"The Netherlands" is estimated to be ca. 2000, ( 1/10 km²)( See
e.g. Kooijmans, 1995).When we compare this number
of the total estimated population with the estimated population for only the
limited area in the southern part of The Netherlands at the beginning of the Neolithic, with thestart of the Linear
Band Keramik (LBK) , between ca. 5350 - 4900 BC, the impact of the
Neolithization is clear: the population increased from ca. 200- 300 inhabitants
that started the farming economy in ca 5350 BC to ca 1500 in 4900
BC, so fivefolded in only 400 years!(note: estimated by extrapolations,
Kooijmans, 2005).In such case, the Early
Neolithic population in the initial situation would have already been
bigger than the number of the native people of South -Limburg that is estimated at ca 90 - 100 based on 1 /10 km².The influence on the
landscape by the LBK is however barely visible in the available pollen-diagrams for
the start of the Neolithic for this region ( see elsewhere on this blog: vegetation history, slides and info) But could we expect this?The change in vegetation
over a certain period is easier to establish when species are replaced,
what has happened e.g. during interstadials. The difference in
vegetation change during the Bølling (ca. 650 years uncal.) and the Allerød
(ca. 1050 years uncal.) interstadials is very well visible in the pollen
diagrams, due to
extremes in vegetation-growth, especially the change between open land and
forests or groups of trees ( Tree Pollen contra Non- Tree Pollen, see e.g. vegetation history, slides and info, at this webpage, references
included). So it is not true the
total period of the LBK in the region ( ca 400 years) has been too short to measure the
effect, even in the
case of percentage change within the species. The only high percentage of tree pollen found for the Early Neolithic is Hazel (Corylus avellana) ( see pollendiagram), indicating open areas but this also could reflect a first influence by hunter gatherer groups on the landscape ( Bakels, 1992). The real change in the
pollendiagrams where the influence of man on the landscape is visible by the changing ratio between numbers of grasses and
alders is at first during the Late -Neolithic period.The rapid expansion of the LBK suggests a successful lifestyle, but this success
in population growth was only briefly; as the LBK disappeared in ca. 4900 BC "
without any trace"....It is clear, in both cases,
whether the LBK, as a cultural expression and life-stye, is an exogenous expression of an immigrated
group, or was practiced
by indigenous hunter gatherers, the existing territories must have changed
drastically.The question is, how main
events, such as sealevel rise influenced the existing population which would
have lead to decreasing territories of the indigenous hunter gatherer group and
as a result could have caused population growth, with the need to search for another food
economy in the region.

Lost territories? Research on the
sea level rise in the early Holocene by deglaciation demonstrates a
worldwide lost of land surface and the sea level rise probably influenced
rates and patterns of human migrations and cultural changes.( e.g. Ryan et al.
1997, Smithsa et al, 2011).At the beginning of
the Mesolithic period ( ca. 8800 BC) the sealevel was 65 meters
below the present sealevel (a.s.l. / N.A.P.). This implicates a 'dry' North Sea Basin (1) , with a quite
different climate, as the shore was located far to the south in the British
Channel ( Lambeck 1995, Shennan et al., 2000).From the beginning of the
Mesolithic period at 8800 BC till ca. 6100 BC, in a period of ca 1700
years, 180.000 km² hunting area has been lost by sealevel rise. Since not only bone and antler implements
( points, hooks, hammers) have been found from the current North Sea
area but also flint scrapers, it is assumed many settlements from the
Mesolithic are buried at the bottom of the current North Sea ( Kooijmans,
1970).The knowledge about the possible
geological features in the North
Sea Basin
mainly comes from the study of Doggerland, a current sandbank but a former
island, described in many archaeological reports ( e.g. Gaffney, Thomson and
Fitch (2007). In this latter study, it appears that lakes, wetlands
and fluvial related features could still be noticed, which are potential
locations for Mesolithic settlement. They also state, it was an 'optimum
area for hunter -gatherers' during the early Holocene, so it would have been an
attractive hunting location, and definitely part of the territories of the
adjacent regions. The Holocene in the region
started with the deglaciation of the large Scandinavian glacier , at 11.700 BP,
ongoing till ca 8000 BP, so for a total period of ca 3.700 years.
Examples of the deglaciation process indicate the process was very rapid
during the first part of the Holocene ( e.g. Carlson et al., 2008), leading to a
tremendous dispersion of humans to the north- western parts of Europe (Demars, 2002, fig. 1-3).In the North Sea Basin,
only an estimated 9 % of the initial surface (10.000 BC) of the studied area
was left in 5550 BC (Fitch, 2011), so this demonstrates the loss in available
land during the long Mesolithic period.For the Late-Mesolithic /
early Neolithic period Fitch argues that “However, by 7.500 BP ( = ca.
5550 BC ) the resources to support the potential population have fallen again
to some 16% of the maximum value. This loss in resources and hence population
potential, results in a population potential that is only 30% of the maximum
potential population value reached in the model “. It is obvious, the people
that originally lived and hunted in the North Sea Basin were forced to migrate
into adjacent regions, putting pressure on existing resources in
'occupied' territories on the higher located areas, more 'inland', for our
region : 'more to the east'. This would partially
elucidate the gradual increase of population density in the adjacent area,
over the Mesolithic period, so the explanation of lost territories as a factor
for population growth only could be regarded as a part of the problem of shrinking territories. Simultaneously, in the east
and southeast of Europe, there was also a
problem with population growth: the farming economy seemed to be too successfully, so more and more land was needed to feed the increasing population,
due to the 'surplus' of the farming economy, resulting in an ongoing migration to the west and north west of Europe. It looks like both problems come
together at its shared periphery, approximately in our area.

The Rhine -Meuse region The paleogeographic
situation at 5700 BC, right before the rise of the LBK in the Rhine -Meuse
area,( which is at ca 5500 BC) , at the end of the Calais I deposits, during
the transgression phase of the sea, peat layers were replaced by clay
deposits from the sea. (See e.g. Denys, 1989)(2).The coastline by this time
was located at a
distance of about 20 km east (inland) of the present coastline, and wide sea
creeks flew to 35-40 km inland. The shoreline moved further to the east
during the Calais II deposits, that ended ca 4200 BC, leaving a large brackish
water lagoon ( ca 15- 20 km wide) behind the growing dunes. Right behind
this area, large marshlands covered the area, which formed the basic
peat ( till 35 m) of North- and South- Holland. In an extrapolation
based on roughly estimated accessible surface of 100 .000 km² out of the
180.000 km² (3) of the North Sea Basin, for one inhabitant at each
10 km² during the Late
Mesolithic period, we would count ca 10.000 inhabitants in the area of the
former North Sea Basin area. If only in The Netherlands 2000 people would have
lived during the Mesolithic ( estimated by means of 'dialect tribes' , Kooijmans,
2005) , we notice 10.000 would be a very large number. Even when it was
half of this number, so 5000, this would still be a large number, 2,5 times as
much as the total indigenous population of The Netherlands during the
Mesolithic.So the growth of Mesolithic
populations in the Late / Final - Mesolithic in the Belgium and The Netherlands possibly
would not only have been the result of a better climate ( the average
annual temperature was rising at ca 2 degrees Celsius above present), with
consequently an increase of hunting - gathering habitats ), but
also could have been caused by the dispersion of hunter- gatherer groups
, coming from the west and looking for new territories. Examples of a migration due to changes in
climate are normal for humans ( McLeman and Smit, 2006) Only
a little bit of sea level rise iin the Lower Countries already could lead to a substantial loss of available land (4)

New strategies, a
questionFor hunting purposes, in a
range of ca 10 km around a camp site, there was enough food for a group to stay
sedentary all year ( Rozoy, 1998). Unless this is highly depending on the
location of the site in the landscape, this would indicate the large
possibility for Mesolithic hunter gatherers to choose for a sedentary
lifestyle.If the LBK as a migrated
group of farmers simply 'overruled ' the indigenous people by its overwhelming numbers,
they would have used a substantial part of the area from the original hunter
-gatherers territory, to build their farms and use the landscape for farming.The loess covered , fertile plateaus were of less
interest for the hunter gatherers, as the dark, vast lime-forests were not very
suitable for hunting as the Mesolithic people hunted the large animals most
(Rozoy, 1998). Only the plateau's edges were used for settlement, especially on the highest elevations on the calcareous soils, that were easy to clear, were well drained and could warm up quickly.The valleys on the contrary were very valuable to the hunters,
as these were the most important hunting grounds: this is where the aurochs and the red deer lived and here we
also find swampy areas with stagnant waters and a diversification of habitats
due to a number of gradients (wet - dry, differences in level, intensity of light, landed plants). Holocene
faunal species were more isolated or in smaller herds and if territories
decreased in surface, this requires an intensification on
particular resources within a smaller area ( Eichmann , 2004). Passive hunting
strategies (such as traps) could have been added for compensation of a shrinking
mobility ( Binford, 2001 Holliday, 1998). For South
-Limburg and the adjacent areas, the question is, why the LBK
settlements were located in the Graetheide region and not in the region more to the
south, where a similar fertile loess cover is present at the Middle terraces, with access to flint rich areas
and good water sources in a varied landscape in the potential natural
vegetation. One of the causes is given by Bakels, as she argues
that the area South Limburg area was not located near easily accessible
open water, as the river Maas has steep banks here ( Bakels, 1982). However, besides of the known
LBK- site of the Maastricht- Cannerberg , which was located high at the
plateau above the Jeker brook, many suitable middle -terrace locations in South
Limburg, similar to that of Elsloo and Stein ( located at a flattened
part of the middle terrace), e.g. near Maastricht -Amby and more
to the south near Gronsveld ( where traces might have been disturbed by
building the village) and even near Eijsden, northeast of Eijsden -Poelveld),
could have been appropriate for LBK immigrants to settle, but they did not..This is important, because of the
question, if - especially along the LBK margins- a changing food economy would
not only have been the result of a population growth, the available territory
also could have been ‘divided’ in a general accepted agreement and a 'logic" respect for parts the
territory.'(5)In such a case this could both
have been the result of a cooperative attitude between natives and immigrants,
or this is a new division of theterritory
bythe indigenouspopulation, in
which case the LBK can be regarded as acculturation of only a part of the native
people.If the territories became
too small to find enough food for everyone and there became a certain pressure
on the natural landscape and food- resources during the Late -Mesolithic period, (which however can not
be established in the pollendiagrams) it is very well possible the new
farming economy has been adapted by only a part of the hunter -gatherer
groups, by means of partially acculturation, leaving another part of the hunter gatherers in its old lifestyle- similar to what we find today in e.g. Africa where both a nomadic lifestyle and a sedentary lifestyle ( and mixed forms) are coexisting. In the Middle- Neolithic ( ca 4600 -4000 BC ), a similar situation would have existed in the region of South- Limburg and the Belgian Kempen area, where the sandy area possibly was used as a 'natural reserve'for the native hunter- gatherers.The change into a farming economy would have lift up the
pressure for a while: a part of the territory has been 'given up' to practice
farming, while the less fertile areas remained hunting areas. In such a case, the
periphery of the LBK can be
regarded as a 'try out' from the indigenous people that were forced to do so
due to population growth. (6) Side effect is, thatthe mostfertile areaswere notnecessarilythebesthunting areas, so the try out did not mean a big attack onthe necessaryexistingfood-supplies.Starting to use the most
fertile and adequate locations in the territory, the farmers left the South
Limburg plateau totally empty ( only few LBK- artifacts have been found here) , probably also because of the many flint mines that are located
here. During the Early -Neolithic, these mines were still surface' eluvium type' flintmines, that
were surface collected at hill tops and hillslopes, and of these mine types, there are many outcrops
in South Limburg (7) .The LBK in Limburg
is generally regarded as an immigrated group of people that obviously took over
the territory and behaved like the whole territory belonged to them for
centuries.With a shifting frontier of LBK lifestyle, it is however not all strange native hunter gatherers became easily influenced , and i.c. the practical side, the livestock and the grain could be found at the border of the territory in the southeastern German Rhine- Valley, where we find the Oldest LBK (LBK Ia)Dozens of small LBK -sites and
single finds of arrowheads, adzes, and pottery has been found in the sandy
adjacent area of Middle- Limburg to the north, which is also the location where
we find the highest density in Late- Mesolithic settlements.( De Grooth ,1991 &
Van de Velde, 1991). This indicates such settlements were given up in favor of the LBK (lifestyle?), because the reason such settlements were located in these areas were not only hunting purposes , but were used as basecamps , see e.g. the Mesolithic of the Venray region where several clustered Mesolithic sites were found near former affluents of the Loobeek, (Verhart, Wansleeben 1989). The exploitationof a flintmine like at Banholt, where large and
rather deep wholes were dug to reach the desired flint, and where nearby a number of ateliers were
detected for the production of semi- finished tools and blanks to be
transported to the north and east (Brounen / Peeters 2000/2001) - would
definitely have been noticed by native hunter –gatherers - so at least it was permitted to use them but for now this is still a question..As there are no signs in the area
of any battle between farmers and Mesolithic hunters - gatherers in the
entire region, this means either the Mesolithic hunter- gatherers did not mind
the immigrated LBK touse territories of South- Limburg and some adjacent regions (
like Middle Limburg) for their farming activities, for mining of flint and e.g.
for the transhumance.(8) or, in case of acculturation, the occupancy of the LBK can be regarded
as an adaptation in a ( partially (9) changing food economy by the
native people. In such latter case, the fortification of LBK settlements could
also be the result of conflicting interest within the “divided hunter-
gatherer” population, as farming requires more and more land when the
farming population is increasing, while at the same time it could be expected the numbers of the hunter gathering part of the group would be staying more or less stabile. The expansion ofsettlementsfromthe beginning till the end of the LBK shows the population was really
growing, so this would have been a serious problem; especially, if the expansion to other areas was not in accordance with the 'agreement within the division of the territory.So, the centroid density in Late -Mesolithic
sites in the sandy area of Middle- Limburg ( but not in South-
Limburg) and the many single LBK - finds/ small LBK- sites in this area,
also could reflect a much closer relation between the native people and the
LBK, and as stated before, even mark a possible acculturation by members from
the same groups that belonged to the same tribe ( i.c. the dialect tribe, or RMS (Crombé
et al. 2009) , leading to a separate lifestye in the same territory. The increase in the numbers of sites was already observed for
the different periods of the Mesolithic and this reflects the growth of the hunter-
gatherer population, which usually is explained by the increase of the
diversity in habitats. It is remarkable we notice the use of pottery in Late Mesolithic sites
on the outmost LBK periphery, e.g. at Weelde (near Turnhout) and
Oleye (near Waremme) (Keeley in Thorpe, 1999), around 30-40 km from the nearest
LBK sites...Even in the
Belgian coast area, at Doel, ceramics was found in a Late- Mesolithic context,
without traces of a changing food economy. (
Innes, Blackford & Rowley-Conwy, 2003). Does this reflect the special position of the periphery
of two different cultural lifestyles melting together and vanishing the 'Mesolithic'?A very interesting issue is the fact Rijckholt flint was found in early
LBK sites in Germany.
(Gronenborn , 1990) The question is, how this Rijckholt flint was transported
to Germany
and who did by that time exploit the Rijckholt flint mine? In this case, the theory of Gronenborn ,
where Mesolithic people played a dominant role in the spread of the flint, fits
in another theory,namely the flint mine
region would still have been controlled
by ( another part of) the Mesolithic hunter gatherer –groups during the Early
Neolithic. (10) In that case this
would be part of some sort of ‘agreement’ in the division and control of the
territory, as stated before in this article.As in France, near the city of Thionville (French Lorraine), bladelets
made of Rijckholt flint were noticed in a Late -Mesolithic site (
mentioned by J.Y. Ringenbach, see elsewhere on this blog: small
tools from St. Geertruid)(Spier, Ringenbach, 1997) , this might also plea for thepossible exploitation and distribution of Ryckholt
flint by Late -Mesolithic groups in the region and supports the idea the local
hunter -gatherer groups were at least intense intertwined with the later LBK .The finds of very small retouched flakelets near a LBK- settlement
(Tilice-Liers (B), recentlynoticed by the author), could also reflect a Late-Mesolithic
tradition related to the LBK.In the work of
Belland we find the relation between the projectile points of the Late -Mesolithic
and the possible development of the asymmetric LBK –point from former Mesolithic
points (Belland et al., 1985). The grouping of the Late-
Mesolithic groups by Arora , based on the tool typology of microliths, shows
the wide territory of the 'Teverener Gruppe' in the Meuse region as well
as much more to the south, in parts of Luxembourg and Northern France (
region Moselle, near Trier) (Arora, 1976), this fits in the idea that this
large territory with all resources, ( including valuable flint mines)
'belonged' to Mesolithic hunter- gatherers.The interrelationship between the
LBK and Mesolithic hunter -gatherers
also has been noticed for the typology of arrowheads ( Thevenin, 1995,
Robinson2008 ).

The vanishing
Mesolithic: change into a farming economy ?The increasing Late Mesolithic population probably lead to a self-reinforcing model where the population had to
adapt their way of life and got less nomadic, changing the way they used their
territories economically, influenced ( you can only be influenced if your mind
is open, so you can adapt new things) by new cultural ideas like farming , that
could give a good chance for predictable food supplies in the future. This could best be reflected in the sandy Middle Limburg area, where Late Mesolithic settlements with large uniformity in tool assemblages ( Wanleeben, Verhart 1989) suddenly 'disappear.

Though the LBK is the best
studied Neolithic culture for our region, the most important questions
about the transition between the Mesolithic Neolithic remain unanswered: what
has been the relationship between the native people and the rising LBK? The almost generally accepted conception of the Neolithic -
(Danubian) immigration wave from the east into our region could at least be held against the light of changing
territories and a
steady growing native population, and possibleresponses to this and the will of acculturation and the cultural influence of neighboring areas.Mesolithic sites in Middel Limburg are mostly pure, but for South -Limburg the ( surface) sites generally are characterized as 'build -up palimpsests with a long
time depth’, covering several
other periods, mostly the Neolithic, most likely due to the excellent
characteristics of the site location ( nearby water supply , drained soils, etc.).At three sites, Visé- Caster, Maastricht-
Neercanne and St. Geertruid -Rijckholt VR08 small concentrations
of micro -bladelets, drills and borers have been found, clearly separated from a nearby Neolithic site/ Neolithic activity zone; but since the three locations are
surface prospected, it is not stated this will mean Mesolithic presence near a
Neolithic site, but it is possible.Or does this reflect spatial differentiation of activity within or near Neolithic sites?In my humble opinion, the key to
understanding the earliest Neolithization of our region, will possibly not be
found by a better knowledge or more finds of the LBK, but on the
contrary, by the discovery of much
more (Late /final -) Mesolithic sites ( or single finds), especially in
the typical LBK- regions and in the nearest adjacent areas. In this way, I also believe
surface collected artifacts, provided that they are very carefully
recorded, can play a role in a better understanding of the Mesolithic in the
wider region.

Epilog
The area with the highest concentration in Late -Mesolithic sites has been turned over in an area where lots of small LBK- sites were found as well as typical LBK finds , like adzes, asymmetric points and pottery.
The question is, if the Mesolithic hunter gatherers, in case of immigration from the east, have voluntarilywithdrawnfrom these areas...The same questions there are for the wider region, as well as for the access and directing of the local flint mines.Another question is, about the fact 'the immigrants' just could choose a location they desired in the new territory without having to considertheindigenouspopulation...In practice, it would nothave been difficult to transport the livestockand somebags filled with grainfromthe Rhine valleysome 50 kmto the west. A westwards ongoing livestock and grains originating from the Middle East, would simply keep its roots in the Middle East and could just have been transported as a "ready to use" product. For the use of this product, including the making of farms, the knowledge aboutplanting depth,harvest time, the care for domestic animals, it was necessary to have practical knowledgewhich easily could have been adopted from the neighboring farmers from the Rhine valley. The finds of pottery in Late Mesolithic sites30- 40 km more to the west, without evidence for a farming economy ,could reflect an ongoing acculturation by the indigenous.Another explanation is, the relations between indigenous and immigrants were made already before the starting of the farming in the region: in this way it is clear how the immigrants- ( if the LBK is is an act of immigration) knew about local soils and got access to the flintmines.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes(1) The
paleoenvironment of the North Sea
Basin was characterized
by a diversity of biotopes, and the many bone finds of mammals at Doggerland
proves this was an area rich in game.(2) See some images,
at thesis -online, Geochemical
patterns in the soils of Zeeland by
Spijker, 2005 (3) Not counted, the
surfaces of lakes, rivers, marshland etc. The number is arbitrary chosen, reducing the accessible
land with almost half. The area of the North Sea Basin would have
been the territory of a single Mesolithic group , during the Early
Mesolithic, as the surface of the territories in that period were estimated ca
230.000 km²; for
the Middle Mesolithic this was ca. 80.000 km², and for the Late Mesolithic ca 30.000
km². (Price 1981) (4) See the lost in
territory for a sealevel rise of only +1 meter in the Netherlands by the map FloodMaps,
sealevel rise +1m(5) An agreement
about a 'non - farming ' zone in South Limburg looks bizarre , but this could
very well have been the outcome of an agreement, where indigenous people from
the Rhine valley(6) Such an idea
about trying new mechanisms is something that we recognize today, forced by a
growing population growth, we now know the gen- technology, but not so long ago
we developed fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, often with disastrous consequences for the
environment and for human health. Such 'experimental changes in food economy'
also are used by a parts of the population, as we have the biological food, non
genetic modified food, etc. Now we have a real choice how to do it, by then
they didn't.(7) Not only the well known
locations like Rijckholt and Banholt contained eluvium type flint, that was
relative easy to dig out; many other places are known, such as Trichterberg,
Schiepersberg, Riesenberg, Hoogbos, etc, many locations where the loess
horizons were eroded and the calcareous bedrock had eroded and was dissolved,
so the flint-nodules were relatively easy to find. The digging for flint by the
LBK in the oldest known flintmine of the region at Banholt, suggests they had
permission to do so. Or, in case the LBK were migrated people, were the
local hunter- gatherers afraid for them?(8) The possible
violent interactions between early Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers
are suggested by Keeley and Cahen, (Keeley, Cahen, 1989) also interpret
by the fortified enclosures of LBK site, but this could also reflect
intercommunity conflict.(9) Besides of the
livestock animals like sheep, cattle and pig, the LBK hunted also the
aurochs and the red deer.
In an excavation at Cuiry-les-Chaudardes (France) ,wild boar and roe deer
were also noticed, and even the beaver. In the beginning of the LBK, the part
of hunting was bigger than at the end. Another remarkable find from this
excavation was, the the highest values for wild animals in general (from 23.8%
to 41.1%), and in particular wild boar, occur in small houses, as in the large
houses the domestic animals ((from 91.3% to 96%) seems to have preferred on the
menu. (Hachem, 1997), as well as the different domestic species that seems to
have been used only in a special part of the settlement. Is this reflecting the theory , a part of the indigenous hunter gatherers were still hunting, using the small houses, and another part had become a farmer, using the large buildings?(10) The small bladelets, noticed near St. Geertruid by the author, are made
in a very fine indirect percussion technique on a prepared platform. So far,
the cores have not been found, but it has been noticed also, very small
tools were produced on prepared platforms made on very large nodules, that were
left in the field. However, this was not suitable for the real production of
small bladelets, as there are on average 1- 4, maximum 5 bladelet- negatives
visible.

Microliths, found near a local flint mine in South Limburg. the eluvium type flint possibly was found in the streambed of a former creek. Left to right : transverse point, micro- bladelet, broken microburin, retouched backed knife (lame a dos naturel)

Robb J. &
Miracle P.(2007) Beyond ‘migration’ versus ‘acculturation’: new
models for the spread of agriculture ; in Going Over: The Mesolithic-Neolithic
Transition in North-West Europe ; Published by British Academy

Aggbach's Paleolithic Blog

List of archaeology blogs

Arkeologgruppen's Blog

Swedish archaeology blog

Les projets collectifs de recherches (PCR)

Projets d'Inrap

LANDWARD

Landward is dedicated to providing anyone, from the curious to the seasoned professional, with access to the continuing educational / professional resources they need. We are a small, but growing, organisation working in the archaeology and cultural heritage sectors.

Archäologie in Aachen

Zeitreise . AC

Ken Johnston: Portable Rockart

Prehistoric people made art, not only by means of wall paintings in caves, but also creating or collecting small objects like heads, figurines, ducks, mammouths, etc. of wood, bone, antler... and stone.

These ( small) objects fit in a nomadic life- style and were easy to transport.

Many examples and links can be found at the website of Ken Johnston from Ohio (USA) about portable rockart